06/2016 is updated.
finally.
07, 08, 09, 10 left to fill the gap.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
"but i pay taxes!"
i'm sure you do.
but, the health care part of those taxes are low because we've pooled the risk. any insurance company would boost your premiums through the roof if they knew you were that negligent and reckless, wouldn't they?
that's why there's a law - it's dangerous & reckless & negligent.
i'm sure you do.
but, the health care part of those taxes are low because we've pooled the risk. any insurance company would boost your premiums through the roof if they knew you were that negligent and reckless, wouldn't they?
that's why there's a law - it's dangerous & reckless & negligent.
at
16:46
a big part of a socialized health care system is the socialization of risk - which gives the majority certain rights to enforce specific rules, like helmet-wearing, in order to try and reduce costs. it also gives the majority the right to be coercive about unhealthy behaviour, like smoking and overeating.
it is eminently reasonable to transfer that risk back to the individual if they refuse to abide by those rules, for whatever silly reason they'd like. and, that applies to smokers and fat people, too.
let me put it to you this way: i don't think "it messes my hair" is a less valid reason than "because my religion says so". but, in context, that is the choice the individual gets to make: do they want to socialize the risk, and follow those rules, or take it back, in exchange for flaunting them? and, it doesn't matter what the argument is.
in the circumstance of being denied coverage, the patient would be able to argue (in court) that wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped, anyways. and, a judge could weigh that out.
it is eminently reasonable to transfer that risk back to the individual if they refuse to abide by those rules, for whatever silly reason they'd like. and, that applies to smokers and fat people, too.
let me put it to you this way: i don't think "it messes my hair" is a less valid reason than "because my religion says so". but, in context, that is the choice the individual gets to make: do they want to socialize the risk, and follow those rules, or take it back, in exchange for flaunting them? and, it doesn't matter what the argument is.
in the circumstance of being denied coverage, the patient would be able to argue (in court) that wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped, anyways. and, a judge could weigh that out.
at
16:30
and, i can rearticulate that in more general language if you'd like:
i would hereby propose that anybody who requires medical attention as a consequence of riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be held liable for their own costs.
problem solved.
i would hereby propose that anybody who requires medical attention as a consequence of riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be held liable for their own costs.
problem solved.
at
16:20
i don't think anybody should be forced to wear a helmet. i don't wear one while bicycling, but i might have different opinion about a motorcycle.
i just want to introduce a caveat: in exchange for their recklessness, they should be liable for their own medical costs, in case of emergency. i don't want to suggest denial of service, i believe in universality. but, that should be the price to pay: if they want to put themselves at greater risk of harm for no discernibly good reason, they should be forced to pay out of pocket for expenses.
and, that rule should be applied to non-sikhs as well. if you don't want to wear a helmet, and then get hit by a truck? you're liable for costs arising from it.
you should get due process, too.
but, that escapes this "religious accommodation" clause, and in the way that i think should be widely emulated. "because my religion says so" should not be a loophole in the law, or a way to evade following the rules. in many cases, those laws exist precisely because your religion says so, in the first place. rather, when something like this comes up, the rule should be struck down altogether - and the risk and liability should be transferred to the individual, instead.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4420093/sikhs-turban-helmets-ontario/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
i just want to introduce a caveat: in exchange for their recklessness, they should be liable for their own medical costs, in case of emergency. i don't want to suggest denial of service, i believe in universality. but, that should be the price to pay: if they want to put themselves at greater risk of harm for no discernibly good reason, they should be forced to pay out of pocket for expenses.
and, that rule should be applied to non-sikhs as well. if you don't want to wear a helmet, and then get hit by a truck? you're liable for costs arising from it.
you should get due process, too.
but, that escapes this "religious accommodation" clause, and in the way that i think should be widely emulated. "because my religion says so" should not be a loophole in the law, or a way to evade following the rules. in many cases, those laws exist precisely because your religion says so, in the first place. rather, when something like this comes up, the rule should be struck down altogether - and the risk and liability should be transferred to the individual, instead.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4420093/sikhs-turban-helmets-ontario/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
at
16:16
again: i don't agree with these numbers at all.
i don't think we have to choose between supply management and market access; i think our domestic supply can outcompete these imports, and you're just going to see american products sitting on the shelf, or expiring before they get to market.
and, if i understand what's happening, i may even make a conscious choice to buy canadian.
what i'm getting at is that opening the market a little might be a reasonable concession, because it's not going to actually harm our industry, anyways - it's just going to lead to greater losses from american farmers, until they get their supply under control.
the bigger threat is the spread of factory farming.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4431314/nafta-donald-trump-canadian-dairy-market-access/
i don't think we have to choose between supply management and market access; i think our domestic supply can outcompete these imports, and you're just going to see american products sitting on the shelf, or expiring before they get to market.
and, if i understand what's happening, i may even make a conscious choice to buy canadian.
what i'm getting at is that opening the market a little might be a reasonable concession, because it's not going to actually harm our industry, anyways - it's just going to lead to greater losses from american farmers, until they get their supply under control.
the bigger threat is the spread of factory farming.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4431314/nafta-donald-trump-canadian-dairy-market-access/
at
15:54
if you want to talk about "modernizing the agreement", the reality is that nobody watches tv any more, anyways. we get our news from the internet. we watch series on youtube. and, we should be promoting more diversity in where we're getting information, not trying to keep the americans out of this gramscian tool.
i don't know what, exactly, "canadian identity" really is. but, if the government wants to promote arts on the ground through grants and other promotional tools, like guaranteed income, that would be very welcome.
so, even this face-saving is...
the government has had a lot of time to think this through, and all it's broadcasting with this is that it hasn't done it.
i don't know what, exactly, "canadian identity" really is. but, if the government wants to promote arts on the ground through grants and other promotional tools, like guaranteed income, that would be very welcome.
so, even this face-saving is...
the government has had a lot of time to think this through, and all it's broadcasting with this is that it hasn't done it.
at
02:32
like, if trudeau wants to base his re-election campaign on protecting the crtc, he might want to give that a second thought.
at
02:27
the truth is that canada has an awful (tory) media monopoly that should be broken up.
and, if trump is going to come in and start attacking the crtc, he's going to get some sympathetic ears, too.
and, if trump is going to come in and start attacking the crtc, he's going to get some sympathetic ears, too.
at
02:25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)